God Bless America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Printable View
God Bless America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
God bless America's knack for attracting talent of whatever kind. [/jealous, can't even get a few hardworking Polish plumbers to be allowed entry over here, never mind real talent. :shame:]
More importantly, the GOP ought to be brought before justice for treason and sedition. :whip:
The amusement and glee many prominent conservatives displayed at the US's loss of the 2016 Olympics to Brazil may have seemed like a harmless bit of partisan bickering, but underlying that attitude is a dangerous attempt to subvert US foreign policy at a critical time.
It is a generally accepted -- though sometimes broken -- rule of politics that competing parties criticize each other at home, not abroad. But that rule now appears to be ignored more often than it is observed, as Republican politicians take to the world's stages to criticize President Barack Obama's policies on everything from climate change to the coup in Honduras to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Unheard of in the functioning democratic world. Opposition does not mean resistance.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last year I thought it was a commonly shared sentiment that partisan extremism undermines the functioning of US politics, and that the voters had had enough of this obstructionist nonsense.
Apparantly, not.
I think you missed a biggie, Senators McCain and Lieberman opposing our President's Middle East policy in a public interview while on foreign soil. Quite ugly. They basically said, "The President can say what he likes, but we will prevent him from altering policy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
To me this is roughly equivalent to having two top-shelf Dem Senators declaring that they would prevent a Republican president from applying any pressure to Chávez while they tour Venezuela. But then, I guess this falls into the "Israel can do no wrong" thing that I have never understood.
How about the GOP tries to work out means to reduce the deficit that both parties can agree to, in an effort to form a sustainable solution that helps reduce actual debt for the actual American taxpayer?
The Republicans won't even help clean up their own mess. The strategy is to obstruct, fuel ire and hatred, and count firmly on the US electorate to have a short memory.Quote:
WASHINGTON — Top Republicans on Wednesday were hostile toward President Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan commission on cutting projected deficits, raising doubts about the prospects of a main piece of his budget strategy.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, was evasive when pressed by reporters at the Capitol. “I’m not going to decide today what we’re going to do in the future,” he said. But the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, seemed to suggest that Republicans might not take their allotted seats on a commission.
“This sounds like political cover for Washington Democrats who are starting to realize that their out-of-control spending is scaring the hell out of the American people,” Mr. Boehner said of the tentative deal between the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders on Tuesday night.
Under that plan, Mr. Obama would establish by executive order an 18-member bipartisan panel to propose how to balance future tax revenue and entitlement program benefits. The group’s recommendations would be due by Dec. 1 — after the November elections. Then Congressional leaders would put the package to a vote.
Democrats expected that Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner would not be supportive given their party’s general opposition to raising taxes and to compromising with Mr. Obama. But Democrats figured that ultimately Republicans would be hard pressed to reject the president’s overture to help reduce the debt, since most of it results from tax and spending policies enacted in recent years, when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us...l?ref=politics
Edit:There are so many acts of Republican sedition it is hard to keep track.Quote:
I think you missed a biggie, Senators McCain and Lieberman opposing our President's Middle East policy in a public interview while on foreign soil.
When will the first troops die because of this? America's enemies are having a ball.
Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Correct, they want regression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
That is why they don't want status quo or progression, Sasaki.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
No it isn't, the oxymoronical "right" who are against progress, want to regress to states such as having a heirarchical monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I believe even you share this opinion, EMFM, with your want of a Kaiser.
So how is this wrong?
Because our opinions aren't "regressive", they're just different. The left also wants things that have been tried before in other places, that doesn't make them "regressive" either. I'd remind you that no culture or state has ever tried the system that I have theorized about before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
They opposed the Middle East Envoy's statements - something that wasn't repeated or supported publicly by Obama. And the situation with Israel is quite different from Venezuela.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I find the whole idea that Republicans are bringing about a new era of obstruction quite exaggerated. Or maybe Bush was simply a much more effective leader. And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?
Care to actually try to discuss things instead of failed attempts at one-liners in all the threads you post in?Quote:
No it isn't, the oxymoronical "right" who are against progress, want to regress to states such as having a heirarchical monarchy.
CR
This is not your grandfather's GOP anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
'Unprecendented obstructionism as the new normal in American politics', lots of stats and numbers: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1...the-New-Normal
The Democrats indeed have a 59 seat minority.
"As long as I have served...I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a supermajority." - Joe Biden.
Indeed Pelosi went to Syria. Her visit was widely criticised at home - as it ought to be.Quote:
And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?
Quote:
DAMASCUS, Syria, April 3 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday for a visit that is seen as part of an attempt to sway Bush administration policy on Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States, behind the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit Syria since relations between the countries faltered in 2003. She was greeted Tuesday afternoon at the airport in Damascus, the capital, by Walid al-Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, and was taken on a tour of the old part of the city. She was to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and other senior officials on Wednesday.
At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar’s government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/wo.../04pelosi.html
Hah, I remember that. Pelosi also allowed herself to be photographed while wearing a headscarf. She also said in a discussion with Syrian officials that Israel was willing to resume the peace process with the Palestinians. The Israelis responded that they had said nothing of the sort :laugh4:
Oh my, a liberal blog linking to another liberal blog showing the results of only several votes in 20+ years. And with no evidence of 'unprecedented filibusters' - which was the domain of the Dems during the Bush years, and was only projected poorly to be higher by the Republicans. Now, I'm sure bills have gotten passed in the Senate, so the GOP isn't opposing everything.
The dems filibustered a number of Bush's judicial appointees as well.
Maybe the dems ought to stop whining and get on leading. Either persuade the GOP to go along with some bills or use the press to force them to.
Bush did it just fine, but I suppose that's only because he was a much more effective leader.
CR
Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent.Quote:
"[Our opposition to Healthcare reform] is going to be a holy war," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday evening.
But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E :bow:)
Lately, I've come to regard him as a stentorophonic, while whispering, Voice of Reason.
on-topic: Mr. Scott Brown: interesting to see what he does in the next 90 days, and whether Mass thinks they got their money's worth, or have buyer's remorse.
None taken. I chose the name, if I recall correctly, because it was the first thing that came to mind at the time. Nonetheless, you're probably right about how I was in the past. Hopefully that hasn't tainted too many views of me, anonymous though this forum is.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Thank you for the compliment. :bow:
I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain. :no:
If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.
They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
That would probably be useful. It's supposed to be a last way defense and not an every day move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred. A better option would have been a truly bipartisan solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
OK, so if government and religion are separate, why is there only one atheist congressman? Why would less people vote for a Muslim or a Gay Presidential candidate over an atheist one? Christianity is de facto the state religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
:rolleyes:
That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?! :wall:
CR
Well, there are also not very many people in federal elected positions who are under 30. Those in office are all old, which obviously means the country is racist against young people.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.
Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.
How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Well, theoretically at least, one should do what the people want. It doesn't matter, since in this case the people are right. This bill isn't the best, and what is needed is a truly bipartisan, well thought-out solution. Congress needs to take their time - rushing things through will just make them worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
just found this on Martha Coakleys liberal facism:
http://www.popehat.com/2010/01/15/li...artha-coakley/
IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Nonetheless, having a Congress made up entirely of members of any one religion does not in itself make for a non-secular state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scienter
Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.
Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?
I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state (which is as it should be), however, I do agree, a secular state is not a Atheist Theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
What would you consider the main points in a secular state?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.
The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.
That while they're both secular, at least in theory.
Shush, we were agreeing, don't try to ruin the moment where hell freezes over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Freedom of religion combined with the legal separation of belief systems from the state (religious or atheist).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
That isn't secularism, just social pressure. Secularism is having the freedom to state your religion, to talk about it, and to reference God if you so choose in the manner of your choosing.Quote:
More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.
Some groups dislike atheists, and in a secular state, that is their right. The reverse is also true, and it is also their right.Quote:
The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.
So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
That is a difficult question, but I would argue that - in general - yes, they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
No. Religion is seperate from the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
While in practise in UK at least, the church has lost a lot of power. However, they still have their seats in the House of Lords and other political institutions, have hold an political influence.
Can you please justify that view for me? I mean having a State religion, by definition, is not Secular. Yes, Freedom of Religion is protected and allowed, there is no denying that the Church plays some role in the public sphere, rather than the private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I agree with Xiahou. If you're going to allow filibustering as a parliamentary tactic, then at least have the "respect for the process" needed to require them to actually filibuster. The whole point is for the opposition to publicly take the stance that issue X is so important that preventing it is worth stopping ALL legislative efforts. If the opposition doesn't pay a price to block the legislation, at least on some level, then it's a bit silly. The new pseudofilibuster stuff just allows the tactic to be employed ad nauseum with little political cost to the opposition group -- the point of the filibuster historically was NOT to create a need for 60 votes to accomplish anything, but to allow the opposition to take a stand and make it count....as long as they were willing to pay the price.
I have to agree with Arach. If you have a state religion, you do not have -- at least de jure -- a secular government (though of course several are de facto secular, e.g. UK).
In that case, if we can have de facto secular states, we can have states where there is a de facto state religion.
A reasonable point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
My own country, founded as a secular state with no official religion -- indeed, a state religion is specifically proscribed -- was profoundly influenced from its inception by that set of mores/beliefs which we label "judeo-christian" values. To suggest otherwise would be in error.
Clever, but I'd have to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
The state structure in the USA is secular. The political culture, on the other hand, is largely religious.
Conversely the UK doesn't have a secular state but the political culture is mostly secular.
:yes: And the C-SPAN ratings would soar as the Honorable Senator from the great state of Wherever prattles on and on, weaving verbose prose and colorful anecdotes into a heroic attempt to best Strom's record time. With the current partisan obstruction, you could probably create a filibuster fantasy league...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
So, has anyone stopped to consider that since Mass already has public health care that this was less a referendum on national healthcare/Obama and more-less people not really giving a turd and just picking who they thought was the better candidate.
I mean, hypothetically, if I lived in Mass and liked public care, I would vote Brown because then I would think a national system would not derail my state system.
MRD raises a very good point, and the post-election polling is ... confusing, to say the least. Poor Senator Brown has a very mixed-up constituency.
Looking at what Brown’s voters want him to do with respect to health care, we see that they are divided right down the middle: 50% (47% strongly) do want Brown to work to halt Democratic health care efforts, and 48% (40% strongly) want him to work with Democrats to make changes to their proposals. Half of Brown’s voters want him to sink Obama’s agenda, full stop, and approximately half of them want him to collaborate with Democrats. That is what we might call a mixed message.
I just find it highly conspicuous that both sides make this out to be the election that will accurately gauge the disposition of people towards the president's health care agenda when in fact it is the state that stands to suffer the least OR lose the least in either scenario of health care reform.
Really stupid, IMO, and typical sabre rattling garbage that saturates the political process and its reporting.
How quickly revolutions eat their own ... Brown voted for the recent jobs bill, which included heaping piles of tax cuts, and was therefore socialism. His followers have turned on him like the Judas he is ...
Facebook:
Twitter:
The teabagging set are also defacing his daughter's Facebook page. Stay classy, kids!
I like the one suggesting that there is a Constitutional Amendment for impeaching Senators via Facebook
He is the most liberal republican in the governemnet even more so than olympia snowe.
I agree, the backlash is absurd. He has to march lock-step with the GOP on every issue? C'mon.
Yeah, but McCain had a stunning score of mid to low 50s on his conservative voting record score. I remember reading somewhere that he even had a '47% liberal score'. Washington Post article, for instance, notes him as having a paltry 56% conservative score in 2006, and his conservative score has been falling ever since 1980s, when he consistently shown higher than 80% scores. According to the article, again, these ratings change when the point of view shifts. On social issues, Senior Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas seems to have the highest liberal rating, with a mere 53% conservative rating. McCain, in comparison, has 46% conservative rating on social issues. But Seantor Brownback's liberal stance on social issues is balanced out by his stunning 92% conservative on economic issues. Then again, fiscal conservatism is more popular than most Republican social stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
All this, however, is from a 2007 article, so Scott Brown is not mentioned, of course. But neither is Olympia Snowe, strangely enough, and she was very much there back in 2007... Who knows.
Well no, but I think bi-partisanship is a tad overrated - over-hyped is the more correct word, since no one actually tries to be bi-partisan even to the more limited extend I would favour. But just as media neutrality/non-bias, bi-partisanship is unnatural. Party discipline still exists. Then again, I have no idea what is the record of Scott Brown. So I cannot say just how much he agrees with his party.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
One thing I will note, however, that I live in a district (1st Florida) which elected Jeff Miller, one of the most, ahem, rectal Republican representative alive, with a wholly perfect or almost-perfect 99/100% conservative score. He even boasts of this on his site. Gawd, and I signed up for his newsletter too, like a good boy who minds his politics. This bloke is now tea-partying. What a surprise... Except that he began doing it back when it was still called astroturfing even by numerous conservatives.
I dont particulary care for John Mccain not conservative enough for me. My father liked him because he was a fellow vetrean pilot and because he supported the war. No other reason to be honest with you.Quote:
Yeah, but McCain had a stunning score of mid to low 50s on his conservative voting record score. I remember reading somewhere that he even had a '47% liberal score'. Washington Post article, for instance, notes him as having a paltry 56% conservative score in 2006, and his conservative score has been falling ever since 1980s, when he consistently shown higher than 80% scores. According to the article, again, these ratings change when the point of view shifts. On social issues, Senior Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas seems to have the highest liberal rating, with a mere 53% conservative rating. McCain, in comparison, has 46% conservative rating on social issues. But Seantor Brownback's liberal stance on social issues is balanced out by his stunning 92% conservative on economic issues. Then again, fiscal conservatism is more popular than most Republican social stances.
All this, however, is from a 2007 article, so Scott Brown is not mentioned, of course. But neither is Olympia Snowe, strangely enough, and she was very much there back in 2007... Who knows.
Tea partying is fair and civilized. But when there are gay pride marches or any form of demonstration by Democrats its all good. I went to one there is no racism or hatred as people on MSNBC will tell you. My favorite is how liberals have to defend all of their policies by saying if you disagree your a racist. MSNBC had fried chicken and collard greens for MLK Jr. day. Imagine if FOX did that.
"Have to"? :inqusitive:Quote:
My favorite is how liberals have to defend all of their policies by saying if you disagree your a racist
Ermh, I thought you were more or less moderate... Whatever, he is indeed quite liberal for a GOP member. Which of his stances do you particularly oppose? Oh, and a shame it was that McCain had to run against Obama. Had he ran against some other Democrat, I would have voted for McCain instead, despite being a Democrat myself. Then again, the prospects of McCain handling the foreign policy frighten me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Ha, good joke. Take your tongue out of the ginger jar, Centurion :grin:. Do you really know what they do there? What they say about Obama? Do you know how much the radical right groups, the militia groups favour and participate in the movement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Do you honestly not see the difference? :inquisitive: I mean, you could have given a better example. Take a pro-choice rally - that is a good example, and relatively common Democrat gathering place. But a gay rights march is different. A gay rights march is little different from any other civil rights march, or the Civil Rights marches. They are an example of a minority facing discrimination and backlash, which is why they march. You can say all you want about media, and gays choosing to be gay, but the fact of the matter is that in many places, the Bible Belt especially, the gays have a tough time unless they do no conceal their sexual orientation. Not even close to what the blacks had admittedly, but bad enough for them to have a right to a march. Especially since their marches are arguably more peaceful than the Tea Party protest - the teabaggers are a backlash movement after all, with their fiery anti-Obama, anti-gov, anti-Democrat rhetoric. In broad terms, the only 'anti-' in a gay rights march is anti-discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I am sorry, I do not fully understand what you mean :sweatdrop:. I 'went to one'? I am confused - are you sure you have the grammar and usage correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
No different from the GOP methods of debate. Some of the favourite GOP defences are 'unpatriotic', 'godless', 'weak on crime/terrorists'... Politics is crap like this. Fallacies fly thick. And some of the so-called defences are partially valid, on both sides. Republicans are not known for their kindness towards blacks or minorities. Not since the Southern Strategy, and some instances before. Even the pride of the GOP achievements for the black cause, the emancipation of the slaves, was applied for practical reasons, applied to first only the Southern states, and was instituted by a racist, in the time when racism was becoming less and less acceptable in the ranks of the intellectual elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Interesting. But the context matters. Very much so. For one, no-one denies or finds any shame in the fact that soul-food is one of the things representing the African American culture and community. Secondly, no comparisons to FOX in this case are valid. FOX has earned its reputation well, as did MSNBC. FOX is well-known for its uncomfortable relations with the minorities and the concept of multiculturalism. Even their prime figure - Bill O'Reilly is notorious for instances of intolerance too many to count by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
You have to understand that when a person or a company has a long record of such things, it is closely scrutinised and cannot afford to do much. Such is the nature of life, and this is only fair. A person who is well-known for his/her acceptance of multiculturalism, for his/her tolerance, for the advocacy of the minority rights - such a person is allowed looser conduct. This is often instinctual at times. Everyone make mistakes, and the people who have a long history of such mistakes are the ones who get slammed on the wrists for making another such transgression.
FOX lost their credibility a long time ago, and it shows little signs of attempting to regain any of it. MSNBC is biased, notably so, but it more or less accurate and well, most Orgahs know what I mean when I say there is a difference between MSNBC and FOX.
Just for fun and giggles, try Googling "stormfront tea party movement" and watch the sparks fly. Sample link:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Stormfront, the most popular white supremacist Internet forum, is home to discussion between extremists eager to influence the [tea party events]. In addition to circulating a list of local organizers and promoting planned rallies, Stormfront members are trying to find ways to involve themselves in the events. In posts to the forum, many voice their intent to attend the Tea parties for the purpose of cultivating an "organized grassroots White mass movement."
- "We need a relevent [sic] transitional envelope-pushing flyer for the masses. Take these Tea Party Americans by the hand and help them go from crawling to standing independently and then walking toward racialism."
- "We intervene to shape the new pro-White grassroots agenda from within the crowd. We intervene for active effect at the event, for advancement of White racial consciousness and solidarity, and for the growth of the organized grassroots White mass movement and the most perceptive racially aware activist element."
- "I also agree that spreading the WN message at these events is a good idea-it's time already,we've gotta do it!! Carefully, of course."
- "A big crowd of irate White folks protesting the government seems like the perfect time and place for us WN's to promote our cause, at least to my way of thinking."
- "I distributed WN literature at the last Tea Party in Phoenix. I will be doing it again in July. This is the time and the place. For those on a budget, I would suggest printing business cards with the web address of your group or organization. Keep it simple."
- "I think they'd be ideal for spreading WN literature and gaining recruits in large numbers, more quickly."
The sad thing is, many of the tea-partiers do not need too much prodding, especially with how good some of the StormFront agitation is. All of this depends on how subtle such far-right movements will do their business. From what I have seen on Stormfront, the people are not as radical as you would expect, and most are relatively decent, and manage to avoid direct hatred of any minority, instead relying on various indirect methods.
Yes, this is worrisome, but the militia movements literally organised the teabaggers, so, or at least played a good part. The militia movements, after all, hold very similar views to much of the early tea-party movement. They still share far too many commonalities.
Wow. So now its come to posting oh-so-tenuous links between Stormfront and the Tea Party. Mr. Olbermann, you have a show to get ready for! What are you doing messing around on a gaming forum?
What use is there in denying the link? Just as what begins as a radical left movement will attract yet more questionable groups, so will a similar far-right movement do the same with the galvanisation of the even more radical, equally questionable groups on the opposite spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
EDIT: And if you think Olbermann is the worst or close to being so that the left has, then I daresay you can be proud of the right beating the left in this regard. Some of the FOX people, in fact, quite a bit of them, make even Olbermann seem tame. Olbermann is biased as hell, but people like Beck and Limbaugh simply have no business disseminating news and actually gaining such widespread popularity among the right.
One more thing.... this is too funny... I just have to ask. Where are all of these right wing militias organizing and planning and such? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I live in the South. You know, the heart of militant right wing-ism... or so they say. We've got a place in Tennessee and one Alabama. You would think I'd see them out... marching... organizing... being all right wingy and evil... In the 11 years I've been here, not a sighting yet. I even drove through a Tea Party rally earlier in the year. Strangely, they all had hair on top of their heads and there was not a Swastika tatoo or a firearm to be seen! And in Alabama too! Crazy, I know.
So where are they? I might just like to join one.. sounds fun! You get to march around and play with guns and talk about how much you don't like Obama... right up my alley! Sure you can find them on the internet.. but you can find anything on the internet. I want to see these massive militia groups out organizing in my community!
None of these people do news. So the way to judge their quality is by how entertaining they are, cause that's their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Beck is the most entertaining from the limited amount I've seen.
AP, Lemur, do you have no low? Really, you don't agree with someone so you resort to insinuating that they are racists? You two should work for MSNB. On second thought don't, you are probably too radical for them. :P
Nice reductio ad absurdum... As a matter of fact, Alabama is not bad at all in this regard. Not according to both ADL and APLC (as well as their magazine, Intelligence Report, which monitors radical groups across the US).Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
As I said, even the StormFront members fit rather poorly into the stereotypes. And if they are smart, they will not wave around swastikas or such. Nor even their own site has swastikas on it. Maybe in it, but not on it. Militia movements exist, alright, and they are doing well nowadays. Their anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gun control platform is none too radical, and it appeals to most sensible Republicans. Now, the degree of weapons stockpiling and survivalist rubbish is off-putting, but that can be toned-down voluntarily to make a better presentation. Very few of the militia members will strut around saying 'I am a part of the militia movement'. It is not that simple, and nothing is black and white.
EDIT: Knowing that PanzerJaeger and Vuk are the most ardent conservatives here, to put it nicely, they are in a poor position to protest too much. Especially without offering any facts. I know at least some militias and Neo-Nazis are involved in the Tea party movement. It is only logical - and I already said the same would happen on the left side of the political spectrum. I have been on the actual Stormfront forums. I will link to the teabagger threads if you wish, where so many say they will attend, and debate on how to push their agenda. Gun shows, I read, used to be the prime recruiting places for such groups. Now the tea-party protests are proving to be the stuff of the dreams IRL to the far-right organisations. Wit all this, it is up to you to prove me wrong.
EDIT2:Call me low, I can take that, especially from my opponent, but I would tread more carefully by Lemur, as his contributions to the Backroom are immense, and his reputation is solid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
When did I say that? Militias are not necessarily racist, and that is very rarely their main platform, or even their platform at all. They do not love the minorities, as a slight understatement, but they are not Stormfront or National Alliance. As for the Neo-Nazis, they want to take part in the movement, and they do so, but their influence is negligible compared to militias. I am sorry, Vuk, but how can you deny that at the very least some of the Tea party people are not far-right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
The first suggestion is fine. The second, I suggest you rescind :P. I am centre-left. You are, well, I do not need to say what you know yourself. I was a Republican when I came to the Backroom. But eventually I became disgruntled with their [Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
closevery intimate] ties to the Religious Right and left. McCain-Obama election was quite a tough choice for me, as I had more respect for Obama's ability, but at the same time more respect for McCain's platform. I sided with McCain, but then regretted that and switched to Obama, a few months after the election.
Nor is Lemur far-left, but that is up to him to answer - or not answer at all.
EDIT3: Somehow, I have the feeling neither of our smilies (:P) is sincere...
I'm sorry. I really don't mean to be so flippant, but this all reads like a bad diary at the Kos.
First, Lemur subtly links the Tea Party movement with Stormfront, while leaving just enough wiggle room to escape such a charge if need be. Just for fun and giggles, mind you. Then comes the predictable hand wringing about those evil right wing militias who apparently have enormous political power and influence... leading to such completely ridiculous statements such as:
And, of course, when questioned about such a claim, we're left with vague claims of "I just know they are involved", "they're hiding amonst us!" and my personal favorite "Ive seen threads on Stormfront man, I've seen threads"!!Quote:
but the militia movements literally organised the teabaggers, so, or at least played a good part.
:laugh4:
OK, I can retract the claim about the role of the militias, but you still have a large amount of the radical right among the teabaggers. Laugh all you want, but the Tea-Party activity on the Stormfront is considerable. I have to go no, but I will provide some links to those discussions later.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
So a reverse argument by association? The Tea Party movement is a mass right wing populist movement. It is highly likely that groups which thrive on right wing populism, such as white nationalists, Stormfront etc. are bound to target the Tea Party movement. Whether they have had any success, I have no idea, but there is certainly cause for concern, and sticking your fingers in your ears for political points is reckless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
[/QUOTE]Quote:
QUOTE]Interesting. But the context matters. Very much so. For one, no-one denies or finds any shame in the fact that soul-food is one of the things representing the African American culture and community. Secondly, no comparisons to FOX in this case are valid. FOX has earned its reputation well, as did MSNBC. FOX is well-known for its uncomfortable relations with the minorities and the concept of multiculturalism. Even their prime figure - Bill O'Reilly is notorious for instances of intolerance too many to count by now.
You have to understand that when a person or a company has a long record of such things, it is closely scrutinised and cannot afford to do much. Such is the nature of life, and this is only fair. A person who is well-known for his/her acceptance of multiculturalism, for his/her tolerance, for the advocacy of the minority rights - such a person is allowed looser conduct. This is often instinctual at times. Everyone make mistakes, and the people who have a long history of such mistakes are the ones who get slammed on the wrists for making another such transgression.
FOX lost their credibility a long time ago, and it shows little signs of attempting to regain any of it. MSNBC is biased, notably so, but it more or less accurate and well, most Orgahs know what I mean when I say there is a difference between MSNBC and FOX.
you have got to be ******** me. Name the event where FOX was racist. Because they have anti illegal immigration feelings. two of my aunts married mexicans and i dislike illegal immigration.
you are basically reading a little book of liberal ideology AP and its is very obvious. oyu can claim you are moderate and i believe you but you need to reread what you just said.
Have you been to a tea party rally. I have and i saw no swastika's or guns. Is disliking the president a crime. In fact i was with many of my fathers friends and their families. Yes that's right and we must all be scum of the earth for protesting.
Lemur that is total bull. That is a weak connection. hey guess what i get when i google barrack obama. I get links to the militant black panther websites. Do i think Obama is a black panther no because i dont make ridiculous assumptions about people.
And AP do not compare black civil rights to Gays. If you know many blacks resent this comparison. I think the way gays are treated is orrible in some cases but the plight of the African american and the Homosexual is far different as one prominent black comedian once said, "at least a gay can hide in the closet we just get blacker when we try."
And stop calling the tea party movements teabagging anyone associated with american slang knows how derogatory a term that is. I dont walk around insulting left organizations with derogatory terms.
I am on certain social issues he is not fiscally conservative enough for me.Quote:
Ermh, I thought you were more or less moderate... Whatever, he is indeed quite liberal for a GOP member. Which of his stances do you particularly oppose? Oh, and a shame it was that McCain had to run against Obama. Had he ran against some other Democrat, I would have voted for McCain instead, despite being a Democrat myself. Then again, the prospects of McCain handling the foreign policy frighten me...
Quote:
Republicans are not known for their kindness towards blacks or minorities. Not since the Southern Strategy, and some instances before. Even the pride of the GOP achievements for the black cause, the emancipation of the slaves, was applied for practical reasons, applied to first only the Southern states, and was instituted by a racist, in the time when racism was becoming less and less acceptable in the ranks of the intellectual elite.
Do you want to take a **** on my face while your at it. Your telling me Democrats cultivate the minority vote for the love of minorities. That is a totally pragmatic decision and they do so to get minority votes. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.
Teapartyers (i understood you said militias but if the militias are in charge of everything) are stockpiling weapons now. please give me the links to this. Is owning a shotgun for hunting stockpiling weapons then cause arrest me and throw me in jail. This barely deigns a response.Quote:
As I said, even the StormFront members fit rather poorly into the stereotypes. And if they are smart, they will not wave around swastikas or such. Nor even their own site has swastikas on it. Maybe in it, but not on it. Militia movements exist, alright, and they are doing well nowadays. Their anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gun control platform is none too radical, and it appeals to most sensible Republicans. Now, the degree of weapons stockpiling and survivalist rubbish is off-putting, but that can be toned-down voluntarily to make a better presentation. Very few of the militia members will strut around saying 'I am a part of the militia movement'. It is not that simple, and nothing is black and white.
There are self avowed terrorists and other undesirables all over democrat politics.Quote:
So a reverse argument by association? The Tea Party movement is a mass right wing populist movement. It is highly likely that groups which thrive on right wing populism, such as white nationalists, Stormfront etc. are bound to target the Tea Party movement. Whether they have had any success, I have no idea, but there is certainly cause for concern, and sticking your fingers in your ears for political points is reckless.
And by the by Rush Limbaugh is not a membe rof the FOX News Team.
Keep things civil folks. Frequent use of *'d words is often a sign that you are getting a touch too passionate about an issue. Take a moment to re-read calmly before hitting send.
What a frothy state I've whipped up with a simple Google search. Neato. Yes, it's true, you can put together whatever Google search you like and come up with interesting results (for example, "GOP old white men" scores me over 10 million linkies, so I win the internet). But the truth of the matter is that far-right separatist and white-supremacist groups are very happy about Glen Beck and the Tea Party. Whether they should view these developments in such a positive light is up for debate.
Nonsense. The only thing of any significance that I've done in this forum was founding the News of the Weird thread. All else is chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
-edit-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when wingnuts need to conflate me with a talking head on MSNBC, I'd rather be the lesbian. I'll let you take your own pick between Coulter, Limbaugh and Beck.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
And it's a darn good thing there's no racism or race-baiting on the rightwing—that's purely an invention of socialist eco-terrorist progressives.
I'm surprised Lemur hadn't picked this one up yet....
http://i46.tinypic.com/2sayz5y.jpg
Shocking, to say the least. :no: